ii. Hecuba is transformed. No longer the pathetic, oppressed victim of war, she becomes an uber-Gorgias, a hyper-sophist. Gellie puts it this way: ‘The mater dolorosa has to become an intellectual heavyweight, a fifth-century free thinker; but this should not disturb us too much.’ 12 But such a transformation does trouble some, especially those who like to see characterization and character development. A.M. Dale, in a famous formula, argued that character in tragedy is formed by the ‘rhetoric of the situation’. 13 Some more recent critics have urged more caution. Donald Mastronarde, for instance, argues that agones can often reshape character in interesting ways, ‘a legitimate facet of the dramatic character, one that is revealed or even triggered by the extreme pressure of a hostile agon ’. Mastronarde also wants to argue that one of the points that Euripides may be making is that character is not simply single, but capable of various and not necessarily consistent actions. 14 There is something in this, but there remains something in Dale’s formulation as well. Clearly, Hecuba needs to respond rhetorically to Helen (indeed she demands that she should be allowed to do so (906-10). But her transformation from victim to rhetorician, and her return to victim after the debate, suggests that neither Dale’s ‘rhetoric of the situation’ nor Mastronarde’s allowance for the plurality of character explain her transformation sufficiently. iii. Troades is not unique in introducing a character only in a debate scene – Pheres is introduced for the agon in Alcestis (614-733) 15 – but it is surely unique in introducing two characters, Helen and Menelaus, both of whom only appear in the debate scene. This fact alone might make Troades ’ agon seem remarkable. Menelaus is also only the second (speaking) man to appear on stage, and certainly the only senior Greek. That his character can be seen as so feeble, feeble-minded and banal is itself of interest, given the context of the play. Certainly, all his rather negative qualities are sharply highlighted by the various ways in which two extraordinary women debate before him as their judge. Hecuba, and her transformation in this scene, we have already mentioned. But Helen – to use the vernacular – is something else. Goldhill says: ‘Casting and dressing Helen is not easy.’ 16 Imagine that you are the Director. How do you cast and dress Helen? The play itself, or at least Hecuba in the play, says this of Helen’s appearance (1022-7):
κἀπὶ τοῖσδε σὸν δέμας ἐξῆλθες ἀσκήσασα κἄβλεψας πόσει τὸν αὐτὸν αἰθέρ᾽, ὦ κατάπτυστον κάρα. ἣν χρῆν ταπεινὴν ἐν πέπλων ἐρειπίοις, φρίκῃ τρέμουσαν, κρᾶτ᾽ ἀπεσκυθισμένην ἐλθεῖν
And in addition to these things you have come out having adorned your body, and you have looked at the same air as your husband, you despicable creature.
You should have come humbly, in rags, shaking with fear, with your head shaved.
So, is Helen all glammed up? Various productions in the UK have her so. See these two pictures: one from the National Theatre in 1995 – Helen as Marilyn Monroe; 17
is a matter not of ‘priority or influence but similarity’. 12 Gellie 1986: 117. 13 Dale 1954: xxv. 14 Mastronarde 2010: 222-8; 245. 15 Rutherford 2012: 193. 16 Goldhill 2007: 203. 17 For criticism of this production, see Goldhill 2007: 127-8.
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker